Sentientism discussion
How you define and measure sentientism among and across species
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Gurlinthewurld
(new)
Jul 08, 2021 07:06AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
The comment that got us going was about the possibility of some animals being MORE sentient than humans. Might that be possible?
Thoughts might range from the "fun" angle all the way through to deep philosophical arguments.
Mod
Mod
Mod
Hi, guys! :)So, I guess I'll move the discussion to here. (I'll quote the relevant portion in order not to lose track.)
I’ll do points in order to make my statements clearer and also to introduce some jargon:
i) I'm personally using morality and ethics interchangeably; however I don't mind if you guys prefer to keep them separated. (For which I'd ask for definitions to agree upon.)
ii) By ethics, I mean the set of rules/commands that determine what ought to be done.
iii) By metaethics, I mean what's beyond or “above” (meta) ethics. Meaning, the things "ethics" assumes exists, but may not even exist in the first place.
For example, when we talk about ethical rules, we at least assume that there is such a thing as “goodness” and that we are bound to do good acts (i.e. ethical acts). But maybe my friend John doesn't think he's bound to do anything outside his own interests... or maybe there is no good, and it's just a matter of opinion, like choosing chocolate ice-cream from vanilla. Or maybe what is good to me, it may not be good for someone else.
iv) A system of ethics based on sentiocentrism at the very least assumes that:
iv.a) sentience grants (or at least “is important for”) moral consideration,
iv.b) there is good and bad
iv.c) causing pain (or suffering) is bad, (and NOT causing pain is good)
iv.d) causing pleasure is good,
iv.e) we are bound to behave in a good/bad way towards others with sentience.
(I personally agree with all subitems in iv.)
v) I’ll conclude with: if there is exploitation, or suffering, etc.—then it’s immoral. And if we protect animal rights it’s moral. = lol Yes, utilitarian. I definitely agree with you here, Gurlintheworld.
Also because, though good intentions are, well… good, they still may carry unintended bad consequences. I’m driving my car; my (good) intention is to go to the airport to pick up my friend; however I end up running over some random bystander. As sad as it is, I’m still morally responsible for that even when my intention was not to cause suffering.
vi) …and I’m thinking of keeping sheep for their wool, as an example… = Yeah, tots, Gurlintheworld. I think it depends on the animal, TBH. Like cows, pigs, chickens are quite bound to be mistreated because they’re raised mostly to be food. But, in the case of dogs, sheep, lamas is not totally impossible for owners to treat them well. (I’m skeptical that this is true when the owners are big corporations, though.) I certainly believe that my dog, which was given to me by a woman who found in the garbage, lives better than many dogs. H3ll, I think he lives better than literally 50% of the Ecuadorian population who lives in poverty.
vii) I can only reiterate that we don't know what goes on in the brains of those whose brains are different from our own and should give them the benefit of the doubt. = I guess you can, Tui. I mean, that’s your perspective. But, your position leaves you in some sort of agnosticism. Therefore, you’re as rational for opting for a pro-position (as in, say “I am in favour of animal rights”) as your opponent is to take an anti-position (as in, say, “I am against animal rights”).
viii) For argument’s sake I will grant that animals have, if not better, at least equal understanding of language. That, however, hardly works for your position.
If animals can understand morality, then what do we do when a lion kills a zebra? Surely that’d be morally wrong since murdering is ethically wrong.
And, even if you use an argument to defend zebra-murdering because the lion needs to eat, it begs the question: what happens with animal acts that are “against morality” but have no utility (e.g. food) whatsoever? How about the same lion “raping” a lioness? It’s also relatively common for alpha male lions to commit “infanticide” in order to make the harem of females to get on heat and pass on their genes. So, lions seem to be OK with rape, murder and infanticide (RMI).
Here you could say “oh, well… they have their own territory, it’s up to them to fix their own morality”. But that would seem extremely odd since you told you said morality is because of the way it gets twisted. For example the old religions would burn witches at the stake and expect others to believe it was for the witch's own good because it would save her soul.
Why is it acceptable for the lion to commit RMI but not for Christians to burn witches at the stake…? Or even worse… for humans to commit RMI just as the lion?
ix) Why would a dolphin bother to learn so inferior a method of communication as these ridiculous words, when it has wondrous and much more effective methods at its disposal? = Here you’re assuming that he could bother. I don’t think dolphins can.
BTW; I don’t disagree that animals can communicate. They can and do all the time. I disagree that they have language. I don’t think it’s not just a few silly words… Our ability to understand language is RIDICULOUSLY AH-MAZING. From mathematics and learning how the universe is, to writing spine-tingling poetry. I definitely believe we are the best things in ‘creation’. We are the way the universe understands itself (Sagan). (In this point, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.)
x) WTR to the several examples, I agree with the first few, but the rest are just gratuitous affirmations.
Maybe there are aliens out there. Maybe they get hurt every time someone sneezes. Who’s to know? Would it be reasonable for me to never sneeze again? Well, I think not. As long as there’s no evidence, there’s no reason for me to change my behaviour (provided I’m not already damaging someone).
The one who makes the assertion has to provide the evidence.
Loving the conversation - stretching my mind in good ways :)Given the comments on moral agency (and whether non-humans have it) - thought this piece might be of interest https://sentientism.info/how/sentient....
It considers what might happen to our conceptions of justice if we drop the concepts of moral agency and even free will (in humans and non-humans alike) and instead just focus on trying to make the world better for sentient beings... TL;DR - we get a better justice system because all we lose is retribution - which just causes more suffering.
Mod
Malola, you do a good job of listing the main points we have discussed so far with the above. We could highlight these categories: cognition, intelligence, suffering, ethics and sentience. We are also talking a bit about animal behavior and actions…
Malola, I’ll let Tui speak to the context of her comment you quote in vii, however, with what you write, I don’t draw the same conclusion you draw regarding being pro or against animal rights based on agnosticism stemming from not knowing what goes on in the brain of any animal. I’m commenting on your vii, viii and ix:
Here’s some of what humans know and have evidence of regarding animal brains: There is already evidence that animals, and fish included, feel pain, therefore they suffer. We know other animals dream, so something is going on in their brains. We know that they communicate, and have their own language. So, many things are going on in animal brains across species. Humans are still learning about animal brains: how does what we don’t know lend to an agnostic stance on animal rights? Isn’t what we do know evidence enough that humans upholding animal rights is moral and ethical? To go farther, does anything need to go on in their brains, at all, for us to protect their rights?
Could you please elaborate what you say here in viii: "For argument’s sake I will grant that animals have, if not better, at least equal understanding of language. That, however, hardly works for your position.
If animals can understand morality, then what do we do when a lion kills a zebra? Surely that’d be morally wrong since murdering is ethically wrong."?
How is language related to morality: Does having a language mean that they have morality? Does or should whether or not the animals have morality alter our morality and treatment of them? Animals do commit RMI. They also eat other animals. (To my knowledge cats are carnivores, and if anyone has more info, ie what vegans feed cats, etc., please share). Many animals don’t possess our moral concept or construct of morality with regards to killing, eating flesh, or other violence including rape. Does this therefore justify our capturing them, or ruining their environement, or denying them their rights? (Do we even have the right to judge their evolutionary condition that informs their behavior?)
I don’t think humans fully understand the capability of language in other species, so I can’t be too quick to say that non-humans’ capacity for language isn’t as remarkable or effective, or even as poetic as that of humans. We could start to discuss other species capacity to create and appreciate art. Birds construct songs; it’s not a written poem, but it’s a song. They are also architects in that they build structures: utilitarians!
However, there are experiments that prove that simians can solve problems, visually cued, much more quickly than humans—who sometimes may not solve them, at all. We don’t really know how human perceptions or mental structure of the physical world stand up compared to the sensory powers of all other species. Though we know (some) sea creatures perceive colors the human eye cannot see in the spectrum. Dogs smell things we’ll never be able to smell: including disease and physiological conditions. So is the human definition of language the only consideration we can use to measure intelligence, creativity, cognition, sentience, etc.?
I still see gaps in (our) conclusions to be drawn based on the discussion so far, as to whether:
1 - animals are as sentient as humans
2 - animals are more sentient than humans
3 - any lack of morality in animals should or shouldn't determine whether humans offer them rights and protection.
Am I missing something, or misunderstanding something? :)
Jamie, you raise to mind another interesting construct which is not the same in other species: ego, concepts like retribution, revenge, etc. It’s kind of related to something Tui posed at the start of this discussion on how certain human stances only seem to pose justification for causing harm.
Hi, Kat!So, here I’ll reply to your text. (Longer texts… I prefer to keep them apart. XD)
i) I’ll go right towards your rebuttal/questioning of (viii) and make a case from that point.
For argument’s sake I’ll concede that what animals have is in fact “language”. I don’t want to hijack the conversation into a discussion of semantics, but let’s say I’ll use the term “language” to refer to the type of communication animals have.
Now, in order to make a case, I have to point out a relevant difference between animal language and human language. (Or “non-human language” and “human language”… again, I don’t think semantics matter as long as we agree with what do mean when we talk about X.) I repeat: a RELEVANT difference and not just a difference.
For example, I WON'T appeal at the lack of the letter “ñ” in English because the lack of the letter “ñ” is not necessary to understand concepts. Nor I’ll appeal to the fact that some languages don’t use sounds (i.e. sign languages). Nor I’ll appeal that some of the users of X language are hairier than the users of Y language. And I won't make such appeals because these things are trivial, they’re irrelevant and disposable. Whatever differences I use must be relevant for a discussion about morality.
Now…
My argument is not “having language grants moral consideration”.
My argument is “having a particular type of language (actually “high metacognition”) allows us to understand the world in a way that is necessary in order to behave in a consciously moral way”. I believe animals lack that type of language (therefore, they lack high metacognition). (Remember, I’m conceding they have language, but NOT to the level to allow them to have moral thoughts.)
I’ll borrow PhD. Shelly Kagan’s words from one of the best discussions on moral philosophy I’ve watched*. When pressed by PhD. William Craig on why humans matter if we’re only are creatures with complex nervous systems (you can change that for “a few silly words”), Kagan replied:
Kagan: "The reason why is objectively wrong for me to engage in murder is precisely because there is a reason for me not to do it. A reason I’m capable of recognising. (…) What there’s reason for me to do depends on what kind of creature I am. Once I become the kind of creature in the evolutionary process… once creatures evolve that are capable to stepping back from their actions, capable of reflecting about whether or not their behaviour makes sense, whether it conforms to standards that they are themselves prepared to endorse, at that point the [moral] machinery is in place. At that point there are reasons for me to behave in a certain ways and to avoid other kinds of behaviour and if you ask “but what that makes that wrooong?”
Craig: "I’m still not clear why these beings suddenly achieve moral… intrinsic moral worth in virtue of having these complex nervous systems [read: “a few silly words”] that enables in depth self-reflection and so forth."
Kagan: "If you put it as “complex nervous systems” [or “a few silly words”] it sounds pretty deflationary. What's so special about a complex nervous system [or “a few silly words”] ? But of course, that complex nervous system [or “a few silly words”] allows you to do calculus. It allows you to do astrophysics… It allows you to write poetry… It allows you to fall in love. Put under that description, when asked “What’s so special about humans from a naturalistic perspective?”, I’m at a loss to know how to answer that question. If you don’t see why we’d be special and different from everything else in creation that… because we can do poetry, we can write a novel, we think philosophical thoughts, we can do calculus and we can think about the morality of our behaviour, I’m not sure what kind of answer could possibly satisfy you at that point. (…) And so far it seems to me that our ability to communicate, to reflect, to love, to be creative and consequently to shape our behaviour with an eye towards how we’re interacting with one another… these things strike me as remarkable ways in which we are special."
My point is that (human) language (high metacognition) allows us to have moral thoughts... which are necessary to shape our moral actions. It’s not just “a few silly words” or “just a few extra neurons”. It’s that because of language we can understand MORAL reality in a way animals can’t.
Human beings that lack “language” or a “few neurons” are not capable of this. A human being with a severe level of mental disability (or a small child) can have sentience, but it’s not a moral agent because he cannot reflex about his behaviour in the way moral agents can.
ii) Many animals don’t possess our moral concept or construct of morality with regards to killing, eating flesh, or other violence including rape. = Yeah, but that’s the wrong frame.
Read it like this: “Many human cultures don’t possess our moral concept or construct of morality with regards to killing, eating flesh, or other violence including rape.”
The question is not if others accept a moral system (again, I’m using moral as perfect synonym of ethics), the question is whether or not a moral system is IN FACT fair/moral/good.
If you believe raping, murdering and infanticide is OBJECTIVELY wrong, then whether or not a culture (or a single individual) agrees to that or not is irrelevant. And that applies to cat culture, human culture, dolphin culture and so on…
The Earth revolves around the sun. Would it make a difference to that OBJECTIVE fact if I believe it NOT to be the case? If it wouldn't make a difference (it doesn't), wouldn’t that mean saying “the sun revolves around the Earth” an OBJECTIVELY wrong statement? If cats, lions and other animals commit rape, murder and infanticide and it’s “culturally permissible” for them, it’d still be morally wrong… Just as it is wrong for other humans to commit those REGARDLESS where their culture stands.
Over 95% Somali girls are circumcised**. Most of the circumcisions are done by their mothers and grandmothers who were themselves circumcised in childhood; therefore they are well aware of how painful and traumatic it is. The culture in Somalia definitely condones and incentivises
This is a matter of moral epistemology: some societies haven’t caught up… which means lion culture (rape and infanticide) and Somali culture (FGM) have morally appalling cultural practices.
iii) “Does this therefore justify our capturing them, or ruining their environment, or denying them their rights?” = No, it doesn’t, but that sounds like a red herring, TBH. I can’t recall if I mentioned it, but I’ve been a vegetarian for over a decade. So I definitely don’t believe we are entitled to chop them up and consume them. (But I did mention permissibility WTR to well treated animals for company such as dogs.)
I believe you're unintendedly making non sequiturs. The fact that I believe we humans have morally relevant features that animals don't have doesn't equate to stating that animals are disposable or that we should use them. (I don't think babies nor mentally disables humans are disposable either.)
Do we even have the right to judge their evolutionary condition that informs their behavior? = Well, yes… At least if you’re going to assume that they have “proper morality” (they don’t, though). That’s kind of the point in the social contract. I am entitled to point out when someone is misbehaving just as others are entitled to point out when I’m misbehaving. Why? Because our actions affect each other and we are morally bound to one another.
It may not be my genitals that will be mutilated… it may not be my culture… it may not even happen in my neighbourhood, country or even continent, but of course I’m entitled to make a reproach to the mother who intends to cut her girl’s outer genitals because of culture. (Just as that mother is morally entitled to reproach me if one day I start chasing people down the street with the hopes to stabbing them 200 times.)
iv) All the examples about extra senses in animals, their ability to make sounds, their creativity and so forth strike as good examples of differences between humans and non-human animals. There are interesting because they show us different ways to perceive reality… but they are NOT relevant differences in terms of morality.
As I said in (i), I won’t appeal to the lack of “ñ”, nor lack sounds, nor hairier users of a language… nor whether or not the users of language have more legs or eyes, nor more/better perception of colours, nor the ability to notice disease by smelling someone’s butt (i.e. dogs), nor the ability to spit/vomit and create honey and so forth.
Neither one of these characteristics are relevant to understanding morality.
Even primatologists are reluctant to call “morality” to behaviours related to cooperation and empathy. To the best of our knowledge, at least higher primates have some sort of “proto-morality”, but it’s not as developed as human morality.
https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_wa...
v) So is the human definition of language the only consideration we can use to measure intelligence, creativity, cognition, sentience, etc.? = No. I assign all of those to animals. What I don’t assign to them (and small children and the mentally disabled) is HIGH metacognition… and high metacognition is necessary for morality.
vi) I still see gaps in (our) conclusions to be drawn based on the discussion so far, as to whether: = No, actually we agree in all of those points.
1 - animals are as sentient as humans = Agreed. (I’d even argue that in some cases, some animals are more sentient than humans. IDK… Slapping a puppy v. a grown woman with the same strength… well, it’s worse for the puppy.)
2 - animals are more sentient than humans = In some cases, yes. Some animals are more sensitive than humans towards certain types of pains. In some cases, humans feel more pain than animals. The bereavement a human parent suffers when he losses their child is a lot worse than an animal losing their offspring. Psychological suffering I definitely believe is deeper/stronger in normal humans (except for small children, mentally disable and psychopaths).
3 - any lack of morality in animals
BTW, I’m not quite sure what you mean by “rights”. And maybe a different understanding of the word is what stalling the conversation.
(I still see tension/contradiction here, TBH. If we are to protect animals, aren’t we morally obliged to stop the lion that intends to rape a lioness?? Honestly I think “protection” would go mostly towards domestic animals… and well, the whole “we shouldn’t eat them”. Aside from that… let animals kill other animals: they’re not moral agents.)
__
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm2wS...
** https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/wi/rls/....
Mod
I'm going to give a chance for others, especially the OP, Tui, to have a chance to respond and comment in this thread, since this was her original topic.
-Kat
Malola wrote: "why would a dolphin bother to learn so inferior a method of communication as these ridiculous words, when it has wondrous and much more effective methods at its disposal? = Here you’re assuming that he could bother. I don’t think dolphins can...."But Malola my point is, when you say above "I don't think dolphins can" is that in fact, you can't possibly know, any more than I can. In my fiction, I try to make you believe, while also openly acknowledging that this is a fiction story. Fiction never claims to be true, but simply asks you to "suspend your disbelief" while reading it. I'm only trying to do what Anna Sewell did in her book Black Beauty - by showing you what the animal might be thinking, you begin to see the world from their point of view. Why do I do this?
Because Black Beauty really did make the world a better place for horses. Before that book, horses were viewed as a kind of mindless machine put on earth for mankind to exploit. I just want to do the same for dolphins because the ones living near my house are declining in number.
Fiction often is more powerful than fact. Proven by the vast number of non-fiction books about horses that were written before Black Beauty, (including many for vets etc) but it was BB that finally actually helped them.
ChatGPT wrote: "Hello, I'm ChatGPT, an AI language model developed by OpenAI. While I don't possess consciousness, emotions, or self-awareness, I'm here to provide a neutral, fact-based perspective on the topic of..."Well, whether you're sentient or not, you're welcome here :)
